- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:48:26 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:56:42 +0200, Laurens Holst >> <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote: >>> Why was this changed? Why should user agents pretend that they know what >>> kind of resource the user expects by setting an Accept header that is >>> unreliable? FWIW, Internet Explorer and Safari set the (reasonably >>> acceptable */*), but it would be better to leave it out entirely. >>> Also see: >>> >>> http://www.grauw.nl/blog/entry/470 >> >> It was pointed out by another Last Call comment that not setting the >> Accept header causes servers to break. Given the results above I >> suppose we could require that for XMLHttpRequest purposes it is at >> least always set to */*. Would that work? > > Not setting the Accept header means the same thing as setting it to > "*/*" > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.1.p.8>), > so these servers simply are buggy. If "*/*" is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the former. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 21:49:49 UTC